More "realistic" advancement in D&D?

[mmadsen]

But that brings me to my caveat. I guess four ordinary guys would be no chance of beating Brock Lesnar unless they were willing; they'd need sufficiently high levels of aggression or self-respect to hang in there if they took a big punch or kick, where most people would give up rather than stick to the game plan.

I agree with the fundamental point that numbers count for a lot when it comes to grappling. After all, a college heavyweight wrestler can trivially beat a high-school middleweight wrestler, who can himself trivially take down and pin an ordinary guy, but a half-dozen more-or-less ordinary guys can still dog-pile the heavyweight with some chance at success.

I don't think they'd dare, as you point out, and someone who's 265 lbs of muscle and very, very skilled at grappling isn't just a big, tough guy; he's strong enough and skilled enough to throw people around casually -- and to hurt them with his defense, even before he gets around to launching any legitimate offense.

How many 100-lb kids would it take to drag you to the ground -- if you were willing to hurt them?

Adventurers can be as brave as they want.

Napoleon famously remarked that in combat morale was three times as important as physical factors -- what we'd call AC, hp, to-hit, damage, etc. -- but bravery and cowardice don't play into D&D combat very much.

Behaving like game pieces, or PCs, is exactly what real conscripts don't do, and I'd love to see the game help with that, instead of relying on an exceptional DM.

 

[Gentlegamer]

Now if I were to imagine a "realistic" fantasy world--that is one that follows similar basic laws as our own plus magic, dragons, and all that good stuff--I would think advancement would occur in smaller increments, and would diminish over time. So in terms of power increase you might get something like this:

In my opinion, if you apply a "realistic" fantasy world, the level progression only goes to about 5th or 6th level for truly heroic characters, and up to "name" level (9th-10th) for legendary paragons of their class.

 

[Umbran]

I
Napoleon famously remarked that in combat morale was three times as important as physical factors -- what we'd call AC, hp, to-hit, damage, etc. -- but bravery and cowardice don't play into D&D combat very much.

Hit points are very abstract. While it is by no means a direct mechanic, bravery and morale could certainly be considered to be in the mix.

 

[Lanefan]

The easy way is to dump xp. Instead give out levels based on sessions played. It takes a number of sessions to level up equal to the level you are advancing to. So 2 sessions to second level, three sessions to third level, and so on (or a multiple of this of you want a slower game). Level 10 is 54 sessions. Level 20 is 209 sessions. Level 30 is 464 sessions.

Which works fine, but *only* if the same players play the same characters all the way through with no retirements, deaths, etc., *and* if all the characters get involved in all the major encounters etc. and thus pull their weight. Neither is guaranteed.

A variable ExP system is the only way to reward characters for what they actually do, and to account for time/encounters missed and-or for new entrants to the party.

Loot take a little more effort; I'd suggest a less-loot system like that apparently included in DMG2 (I don't have that book).

Training rules and costs can take care of some of this, also; though at cost of some work on your part as DM.

Lanefan

 

[Umbran]

A variable ExP system is the only way to reward characters for what they actually do, and to account for time/encounters missed and-or for new entrants to the party.

The "only way"? Beware of absolutes - they usually aren't.

A GM could use an action point system to reward characters for what they do. Or, the GM could tailor magic items for them. Or award them more gold, or tailor the adventures to work more with their plot hooks, or give the players fresh baked goods for a job well done...

For some GMs, XP are not about rewarding for what the PC has done, but is more about pacing the power growth.

 

[Snoweel]

How many 100-lb kids would it take to drag you to the ground -- if you were willing to hurt them?

I think, given the comparison of normal men to Brock Lesnar, a more realistic question would be how many short, skinny men (130-lbs) would it take to drag me (185-lbs) to the ground.

I think 3 or 4 would be able to do it pretty easily if they were committed and knew the basics of how. The real question is would they be able to stop me running away and the answer is almost certainly no.

In my opinion, if you apply a "realistic" fantasy world, the level progression only goes to about 5th or 6th level for truly heroic characters, and up to "name" level (9th-10th) for legendary paragons of their class.

This sounds right to me.

My group just finished the H-P-E 4e module series and while I found Paragon and Epic play fun, I would've liked to have spent longer in the Heroic tier.

Hit points are very abstract. While it is by no means a direct mechanic, bravery and morale could certainly be considered to be in the mix.

Totally. NPCs can do whatever you want at 0 hp, whether that be dying, faling unconscious or surrendering.

Personally I have them surrender or run much earlier than 0 hp to reduce grind.

The "only way"? Beware of absolutes - they usually aren't.

A GM could use an action point system to reward characters for what they do. Or, the GM could tailor magic items for them. Or award them more gold, or tailor the adventures to work more with their plot hooks, or give the players fresh baked goods for a job well done...

Or even just the satisfaction of cracking the case or killing the bad guy.

 

[Starfox]

A variable ExP system is the only way to reward characters for what they actually do, and to account for time/encounters missed and-or for new entrants to the party.

Which assumes you WANT to differentiate rewards. DMG1 for 4E recommends you do not. Amber diceless roleplaying (which is fairly much PvP) said you should not do it; the good players will always beat the bad players, even at the same point value. I find it is a bad idea overall and tend to have a "level" in my campaign, an xp (and gp in DnD) value that all players share regardless of if they have been there from day one or came in for their fist session.

I generally find that the players that would get extra individual rewards generally dominate the game anyway; being present and doing things might not get them more xp, but the same player generally devotes more time to his character, develops his net of contacts, and otherwise is much more involved, which means he is more in touch with the game and game world, thus more effective overall. All without any individual rewards or incentives. Giving out individual awards, in my experience, just means the players who do not invest as much in the campaign invest even less and eventually quit.

If we want to discuss this point further, I say we make a new tread for it.

 

[Lanefan]

Which assumes you WANT to differentiate rewards. DMG1 for 4E recommends you do not.

Of course it does; 4e is not designed for realistic advancement, it wants everyone in the party to level together and doesn't handle parties of mixed level as well as it probably should. I'm assuming this thread is about trying to find a better way than that.

And yes, I want to differentiate rewards. I've both played with and DMed players who, if the ExP were divided on a pure encounter-completion basis regardless of actual participation, would have their characters run and hide *every single time*, leaving others to take the risk. The last thing I want to do is reward this selfish me-first style of play.

And that is realistic. The character who runs and hides from a situation (or who happens to sleep through it, or be elsewhere at the time) will not gain or learn as much from overcoming it as will the character who sticks their nose in - and that goes for combat and non-combat scenarios alike. And if your ExP rewards don't reflect this you're doing your risk-taking characters (and players) a grave dis-service.

There was a lo-ong thread in here a few months back about just this. I believe the scenario was that two characters had gone off exploring, they found nothing; but in the meantime the other three went elsewhere and got involved in a battle: the question was whether or not the two who were off elsewhere would get ExP for that battle. Obviously, I maintain they should not. The more recent editions of the game as designed would seem to disagree (the 3e DMG is quite specific in stating that everyone gets ExP for everything, for example), and this is both unrealistic and - let's face it - grossly unfair.

So, in summation, a large part of realistic advancement lies in how the ExP are given out, and for what; and risk should lead to reward on an individual basis. And if this leads to disparate levels within the party, so be it.

Lanefan

 

[S'mon]

I think, given the comparison of normal men to Brock Lesnar, a more realistic question would be how many short, skinny men (130-lbs) would it take to drag me (185-lbs) to the ground.

This reminds me of a documentary on the Battle of Guadalcanal I saw recently. One interview was with a US Marine, he was talking about melee with the Japanese. He said the Marines had heard lots of rumours about the Japanese lewt skillz - fearsome Oriental martial arts - and how the Marines marvelled at how, when a Japanese charge reached the US lines, how poorly they actually fought and how easily they died - "They were no match for us".

I'm also reminded of accounts by British soldiers from the first Gulf War of hand to hand combat with the Iraqis, unlike the Japanese of same race and similar size, but again no match for them; the trench fighting was more of a massacre than an even fight. Or the SAS soldier Chris Ryan's account of ambushing and wiping out an entire Iraqi platoon.

As has been said upthread, in the real world you do get huge disparities in combat effectiveness even among trained soldiers. You don't get such huge differences in damage resistance, at least not reliably.

 

[S'mon]

The more recent editions of the game as designed would seem to disagree (the 3e DMG is quite specific in stating that everyone gets ExP for everything, for example), and this is both unrealistic and - let's face it - grossly unfair.

It's less unfair if new PCs come in at the same XP total and gear value as current PCs, since there is no death penalty. But the natural progression of this equality-based approach is just to discard XP and have the GM level PCs up every 3 sessions or whatever.

Personally I don't see why 4e PCs shouldn't vary in level, since the power gradient is much shallower than in prior editions. I start new PCs up to 3 levels below current PCs, but you can carry over half the XP from a prior PC. Also, PCs below the highest level in the party earn double XP until they catch up, so they won't be in the hole forever.